How can a scenario of sexual assault and murder (which it was) be pornography?
Kermit, I read your post to my husband and we both had a hearty laugh.
Glad to hear you enjoy my posts
How do I know Mignini's a wino? ..... Obviously, I jest.
I'm relieved. I hope that if you have any followers amongst the FOAKers, The Entourage in general, or any newbies who are trying to understand the characters in this play, they take note.
The pervert part is easy to support, though -- Kaosium has said it best in a number of posts today using the word "pornographic" to describe Mignini's depiction of the scene of the crime. The guilters always seem to overlook the fact that the proposed scenario sprang from Mignini's imagination on the 5th or 6th of November without ONE IOTA of evidence to suggest it.
The word pornographic is Kaosium's, not the investigation's. If you're referring to a sexual assault by more than one person which culminated in murder, then let's take a look at the initial elements which could lead to that scenario (be it right or wrong - I'm only interesting here in understanding if the investigators were reasonable in considering this scenario):
Initial observation: There's a body with a slashed throat.
Initial conclusion:
There has been a murder.
Initial observation: The victim is a girl. She is semi-naked. Her bra has been slashed (later there is DNA found on her genitals). Her boyfriend is in another city. Prior to the murder she had been with her friends and made no mention of having a date.
Initial conclusion:
There has been a sexual assault.
Initial observation: Luminol reveals different sized footprints between the bedroom and the bathroom. Some of the larger footprints could belong to a male or males. Some of the smaller footprints could belong to a female or females.
Initial conclusion for creating a scenario:
There was more than one person.
Initial observation: Neighbour states hearing the running of more than one person.
Initial conclusion for creating a scenario:
There was more than one person
Initial observation: Police officers observe that one of the roommates acts bizarrely (cartwheels in a police station while waiting to be questioned, hitting her head ... nothing incriminating in itself, but it sure draws attention). Her boyfriend insists in being with her during all questioning. Their alibis are vague and don't really jive. On the 5th, Raffaele says that Amanda made him tell a pack of lies and that in fact she was not in his flat during the time the crime took place. On the 5th, Amanda places herself in the cottage (I'm still not sure if - and in which statement that was or wasn't accepted in court - she may have placed Raffaele in the cottage) and implicates a third person who she says was the actual attacker and murderer.
Initial theory:
The police create a theory of a sexual attack gone wrong, one which escalated into murder.
Why do you guys not find that weird?
Why do you find that weird?
This has been a long and complex case. Along the way there is no doubt that mistakes have been made. Initially assigning the Nike print to Raffaele was a notable example, but that's why suspects have lawyers. Giobbi should have avoiding stating "case closed", when he knows that from the initial compilation of data to closing an investigation, over a year can go by. Matteini is faulted for describing in definite terms a sexual assault gone wrong in her initial report which sent RS, AK and Patrick to jail but such a report requires a description of the criminal scenario. Maybe it should be compared to other such reports in Italy to see if verbs are conjugated in present perfect or conditional, and if in general it's conditional she could change her style. Again, not even Matteini would state at that point that the scenario in her report just a few days after the crime would exactly reflect the case that the prosecution would present in court well over a year later after a lengthy and complex investigation.
And why do you not find it weird that you feel the need to defend Mignini, who would sue me for slander if he could find me? He's not exactly helpless, guys.
I don't feel the need to defend Mignini. I don't know him, I'll never know him. I'm interested in this case. If Mignini retires tomorrow, this case won't start over again.
Now, if the prosecutor of a complex case is the object of a multi-level campaign to discredit him, I think it's normal that he tries to defend his honour and integrity.
I really don't think Mignini is very interested in you, sorry to say. But as the media gets bigger and more formal, then - to use your questions - don't you think it would be weird for him not to defend himself?
If a (supposed) journalist like Steve Shay writes that certain unnamed persons say that Mignini is mentally unstable, well, Mr. Shay should make a minimal attempt to be professional about it (identify theses persons, or who they are associated with, and at least contact Mignini for his version, if the "mental instability" comment is really a news item and not just a burp from a FOAKer).
In the same way, Steve could read your post about Mignini being a "wino" and publish an article stating that certain unnamed persons say that Mignini has a problem with alcohol.
When on top of that (or as part of that), there's an overall PR campaign managed by an expensive company that works with Boeing and other corporations, and its website describes that one of its ways of getting a message out is to pay journalists and media experts, well, I get the feeling that Mignini is the David and the Marriott PR campaign the Goliath.
(((Do you honestly think that "John Q Kelly" knows as much about this case as even you? Where is "John Q" right now? Spending his paycheck? He's not following the case now, nor did he ever follow the case beyond the few minutes he spent reviewing the talking point cue cards that were prepared for him. Yet more people saw him than have ever heard of Mignini)))
